StarDestroyer.Net BBS

BabelHuber wrote:

Macs haven't looked like toys since the fruity iMacs, and the G5's are big, aluminum towers.

The G5s don't look like toys, but I don't get excited because of their design, either.

So? I don't get excited over the design of any computer. I say, "Cool" or "That's ugly." The G5 falls into the former category.

My home PC is some kind of toy, too, somehow.

The iMac isn't balanced out very well. It has a CPU doesn't perform bad, but the GeForce 5200 is ridiculous, not to speak of 256MB RAM stock.

I'll agree on the RAM, but I don't see what all this bitching about the 5200 is for. Sure, it's the lowest-end DX9-compliant GPU out there, but do you see the people buying iMacs really giving a rat's ass that they can't run UT2k4 at 30 fps on the LCD's native resolution?

For a mere office computer, it's too expensive. The smallest model costs 1370 Euro here in Germany, and the specs qualify it only for 2D applications, with no way to upgrade the GPU.

Again, how many potential iMac buyers do you actually see upgrading the GPU? Look at how many Windows PC users throw away their entire machines when they get a virus, for crying out loud! Only people like you and me actually open up and upgrade our computers. Everyone else just buys new ones.

I think the core market is the home user, who is likely gonna use this machine to write e-mails, look at pictures and write a document from time to time.

For these simple tasks the iMac is really expensive, so it is a toy, isn't it?

You get a certain amount of peace of mind that comes with that. You're basically immune to the viruses, trojans, spyware and adware that infects Windows, so you don't have to worry about those things when doing those simple tasks like checking e-mail or browsing the internet.

BabelHuber wrote:

Macs haven't looked like toys since the fruity iMacs, and the G5's are big, aluminum towers.

The G5s don't look like toys, but I don't get excited because of their design, either.

Define "toy." If I was going to classify any kinds of computers as toys, I'd say that the high-end boxes that hard-core gamers build for themselves would be it because they're primarily used for entertainment.

My home PC is some kind of toy, too, somehow.

The iMac isn't balanced out very well. It has a CPU doesn't perform bad, but the GeForce 5200 is ridiculous,

Well, it IS an Ultra...it performs a lot better than a normal 5200.
Yes, I would have perferred a better (much better) graphics card, or at least the option of upgrading, though.

not to speak of 256MB RAM stock.

While it's a tad annoying, notice that almost every Dell only has 256 MB unless its a special 'free ram with rebate' deal.

For a mere office computer, it's too expensive. The smallest model costs 1370 Euro here in Germany, and the specs qualify it only for 2D applications, with no way to upgrade the GPU.

I wouldn't be too sure. Over here, most offices I see have flat panels, to save space. This would be the ultimate space saver. And if the company is already planning on spending all the extra money on getting computers AND flatscreens, they're already planning on spending at least $1000 per computer.
Education (and probably business and volume) discounts would give them at least $100 off each unit...

I think the core market is the home user, who is likely gonna use this machine to write e-mails, look at pictures and write a document from time to time.

For these simple tasks the iMac is really expensive, so it is a toy, isn't it?

Not at all. Upgrade the RAM on that puppy and it'll be a beautiful Photoshop machine, with a color calibrated LCD.

Besides, subtract $500 for the average cost of a 17" LCD, and you're only spending $799 on a 64-bit computer with a graphics card that is capable of playing most modern games, has an 80 GB hard drive, etc, etc. Let me tell you one thing- It's gonna cost you about that much to get an equivilant Dell, and it won't have a graphics card, either. Of course, it'd be much cheaper to build your own computer, but the average consumer (or prosumer) doesn't do that, do they?

I'll agree on the RAM, but I don't see what all this bitching about the 5200 is for. Sure, it's the lowest-end DX9-compliant GPU out there, but do you see the people buying iMacs really giving a rat's ass that they can't run UT2k4 at 30 fps on the LCD's native resolution?

Actually, it's not the lowest end. People seem to be forgetting that this is a 5200 ULTRA. Checking Tom's Hardware's VGA charts, the UT2k3 tests, the FX 5200 scored low on the chart at 33.2 fps. The FX 5200 Ultra did a lot better, nearly 10 fps (30%!), scoring 42.4! A 9.2 fps increase.
The 5200 Ultra was 4 places above the FX 5200, and beat out the Radeon 8500, 9000 Pro, 9200, and 9600 SE.

So it's not the absolute low end. Look at Dell- they don't even INCLUDE a graphics card! And the tests I've seen say that the Intel Extreme 2 Integrated graphics chip is well over 3 times slower than the 5200, let alone ultra.